Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The different opinions about civil disobedience
Concequences of civil disobedience
Civil disobedience in general word
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The different opinions about civil disobedience
Civil Disobedience History, as Karl Marx suggest, is defined by human suffering. When a man is oppressed, his natural recours is rebellion. Most ost restiance movements of the past incorporated violenve. Violence has been a mean to an end for centurys. Even today our lives are chronicled through violence and human suffering. However, a paradox ensues when revolutionaries use violence to free themselves from oppression, as a mean to an end. By replacing violence with violence, you are only contuining a destructive cycle that can in no way liberate everybody. It oppresses the oppressor and depresses the depressed. Martin Luther King jr. sought to remedy this unhealthy cycle by prescribing a new approach to rebellion. Not only did he inspire millions to resist their human condition, he did so without resorting to violence. Through his pragmatic and ethical approach to civil rights reform, Martin Luther became a revolutionary revolutionist. King believed that the problem with violence as a means of pursuing freedom is that revolutionaries must often employ means that threaten to subvert it therefore is illegitimate, and as Hanna Arendt states in On Revolution, “Violence has no intrinsic value, and on the human scale of relative values, will always lie beneath the human needs and interests that is serves.” Albert Camus states “Violence can only be an extreme limit which combats another form of violence, as, for example, in the case of insurrection” Both Arendt and Camus agree with King that Violence, although justifiable in extreme cases, can never be legitimate. King sought to legitimize the Civil Rights Movement by exhorting and adhering to a philosophy of non-violence grounded in morals and human ethics. When we hear the w... ... middle of paper ... ...amus’ Rieux in The Plague when he says: “I have no more than the pride that’s needed to keep me going. I have no idea what’s awaiting me, or what will happen when all this ends. For the moment I know this. There are sick people and they need curing” King, like Rieux, was a healer; he sought to mend the wounds of society rather that create new ones. It is for this vision that I deem him the ideal rebel. Bibliography: WDWGFH- Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967) WWCW- Why We Can’t We Wait (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963) TC- The Trumpet of Conscience (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967) GONV- Merton, Thomas Gandhi on Non-Violence (New York: New Directions, Publishers, 1965) Isaac, Jeffrey C. Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion (Michigan: Yale University Press, Publishers, 1992)
If he had not made clear that he was a trustworthy, knowledgeable, and honest man, he would not have made his point clear. King’s statement “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever,” (Martin Luther King 24) is a strong reminder of history. If people do not realize their emotions in a nonviolent way, they will seek violence until they are heard. That statement is one of the strongest concerns to show why direct action was important, as well as, convincing the reader to consider their immoral practices. King goes above any beyond in sharing his beliefs because if he had not, the audience would not have been persuaded. Furthermore, the information and evidence he demonstrated was necessary at that
Through King’s peaceful protest, he works to find his definition of good life in equality, where peaceful protest can “create a situation. [and] inevitably open the door to negotiation,” (King). However, King’s attempt to overwrite centuries of oppression and rise against unjust laws doesn’t come without its own set of consequences and benefits.... ... middle of paper ...
King uses his position of being an American clergy man, devout Christian and a leader of the civil rights movement in order to push for civil rights against racial segregation and prejudices and bring more recognition and light towards African Americans. King uses various words and phrases to achieve the emotions of the audience to sympathize his state and to understand the sacrifices he has made towards the civil rights movement. Unlike Martin Luther King, Thoreau did not rule out using violence against an unjust government. When reviewing the rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos and pathos, King achieved a clear, more concise essay with greater emotional depth and a more relatable personality.
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.’s essay “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” has two main features. The first feature of King’s essay is a call for action; action to bring about change. The second feature, the more easily viewed feature of this essay is a call for a specific type of action to bring about a specific type of change. The change King wishes to bring about is a peace and equality brought about through non-violent actions.
In Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," he uses a hyperbole to support his belief that "one person can make a change," an idea still relevant today. Thoreau uses many forms of literary techniques such as multiple hyperbole, emotional appeals, and paradoxes. Thoreau uses these to sustain his ideas on civil disobedience. He believes if you believe in something, and support something you should do whatever it takes to help the cause. Many people in today's society believe to just go with the flow, rather than living like Thoreau has, and supporting his own beliefs no matter what the consequence. Henry David Thoreau had a lot of personal authority, he was all about his own independence. Many different people believed in being a non-conformist, and Thoreau was one of them, and he very well showed how much he supported it. Thoreau was not the only nonconformist, they're many people who followed his beliefs and they refused to be bound by anybody, or anything they did not support. Other non-conformists were Gandhi, Galileo, Malcom X and many more.
the segregationists, resulting in the injury and deaths of many of King’s followers. With these points in mind, King came to the conclusion that the best strategy in gaining the rights of African American was the use of non-violent protest. He believed that violence only “intensifies evil,';
Henry David Thoreau, a philosopher and creative artist as well as an anti slavery activist, wrote his short story “From Resistance to Civil Disobedience”. In this story he’s arrested for not paying his state taxes. At the time the state was engaged in the Mexican-American War that was not only fought over boundaries expanding slavery but was also enacted by President Polk under his own decision. Thoreau thought the war was too aggressive and without just reason.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi. From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an increase in inequality.
Civil disobedience has been around for a long time. In Bible times Christians would disobey laws that would go against their beliefs, such as the law that they couldn’t preach. (Acts 4) Christians still disobey laws in many countries that do not let them practice their faith, some end up in jail or killed.
By definition, civil disobedience means to actively refuse to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence (Wikipedia 2007). Many of the influential people in history have felt passionately about what they believe. These passions caused them to rebel against a government or authority. Many times they felt so strongly about what they believed and how they were being treated was wrong they became disobedient. They would take physical and verbal abuse for being disobedient but would never retaliate. They believed in what they thought was wrong and tried to change the way they were governed. Albert Einstein once said 'never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.' Albert Einstein's views seem to be reasonable. The claim by Albert Einstein is accurate because people should stand up for what they believe, they should know when they are right and their government is wrong, and they should trust in themselves and their own beliefs.
Martin Luther King Jr was one of the most beloved and one of the most hated men of his time. The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. is embodied in these two simple words: equality and nonviolence. He believed that Gandhi’s method of nonviolent resistance was the key to overcoming evil (The Archive, 1968). King was involved in many nonviolent protests including the Montgomery bus boycott, The Albany movement, and the Birmingham campaign. He also wrote many speeches and writings that changed the way people thought about others. In one of his most famous speeches, I Have A Dream, King says, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.” He is basically saying that anger and revenge will actually do the opposite of setting you free. The hatred in your heart will never satisfy
The non-violent philosophy was not a movement of pacifism to Martin Luther King, it was one of action. Absolute strength was apparent in its practice, but how? The student movement caused many of its’ participants to be severely beaten, chastised, and arrested, only to continue while never fighting back. Why were they doing this? King felt the answer was that through their actions they would awaken not only the majority, but more importantly the minority to the need for equal rights. Apathy had set in among both groups causing them to accept the current state of affairs, and like the great “gadfly” Socrates, King and the students were forcing both groups to wake up and open their eyes.
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience: “Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other non-violent means” (Houghton, 2000). Although this definition seems broad enough to cover any aspect of a discussion, there is still much to be said about the subject. Martin Luther King wrote a fifty paragraph letter about the timeliness and wisdom in such an action, while Hannah Arendt managed to squeeze her definition into six (extra long) paragraphs regarding Denmark and the Jews.
Again, Mr. King uses religion as a guide to explain why violence could never be used to get the end of the segregation. At that moment and as a strategy, he was probably right. The forces between the parts were to uneven. Besides, Mr. King knew that the federal government barely has capacity of action since they were stuck in a horrible and unpopular war in Vietnam, and riots and demonstrations were happening everyday in the universities across the country. However, if we look at his decisions from today’s point of view and attending to the fact that minorities are still suffering the injustice of economical segregation and the police force abuse, among others injustices, we can say that he didn 't go to far. Then may be we can rethink if appealing to violence to avoid those problems could be considered just as self-defense. For example: when communities are being devastated by poverty, drugs, and criminality, and the authorities don’t do anything to protect them just because they are black, Latin, or American Natives, don’t they have the right to fight back? Moreover, when they have to watch everyday in television the awful crimes that some authorities commit against minorities with no punishment in most of the cases. Don’t they have the right do defend their own life? It is a fact that violence is not desirable, but we have to remind that the end of slavery in the United States cost a civil war, that the
Throughout his education, Martin Luther King Jr. tried to find a way to demonstrate his belief of racial equality with the most effective means possible. He quickly realized that the best strategy to end segregation was to use nonviolent forms of protest. At Crozer, Morehouse and Boston University, he studied the teaching of Mohandas Gandhi, who used nonviolent methods to help India claim its independence from Britain. King read several books on the ideas of Gandhi, and eventually became convinced that his methods could be employed by African Americans to obtain equality in America. King knew that any violence on the part of African Americans would lead to violent responses from segregationists, which would lead to injury or maybe even death for his followers. He had to teach his followers not to respond violently to cruel attacks from segregationists. King decided to sponsor workshops to train African Americans in nonviolent beh...